Human relationships IB Psychology extension

Limitations of Madsen et al (2007)

* Confounding variables: -> Definition of family / kin There may be differences in culture in how we choose to define relatives; In some cultures, unrelated people may be classified as kin, or a cousin could be seen as a brother -> Gender Males endured a longer time n general than women. * The study did not take into consideration the prior history that participants had with their relatives, or their emotional connection to each family member. * Parent and sibling were put in the same category - when in reality, the reproductive chances of a sibling is way greater since youth is a factor regarded as important in reproduction.

Strengths of Madsen et al (2007)

* Imposed an actual cost (in the form of pain and time) for the participants * It was the first experimental evidence that kinship plays a role in moderating altruistic behaviour. It could establish a cause and effect relationship between degree of genetic relatedness and time sat in the painful position, which a correlation study could not do. * Has cultural implications/applications for altruism; The evolutionary theory of altruism in the form of kin selection theory appears to take place across many different cultures. * The controlled conditions and strict operationalised variables of the laboratory experiment means that the costs endured were real and measurable (relates to the first point).

Evaluation of the Kin Selection Theory: Limitations

--> The theory is too simplistic, not taking into account the emotional attachment and contact time with our relatives. It can be seen as a reductionist approach to viewing human beings and their social relationships. --> The theory does not provide an explanation for true altruism, and why we may help strangers. Thus, difficult to answer the debate of whether we are selfish or unselfish? (can be answered for both). --> It is difficult to measure "prosocial behaviour" especially in a laboratory setting, as some situations which require true costs may be unethical to test --> The theory does not explain why parents may love and protect adopted children?? --> Alternative explanation: Is it actually our genetic closeness that explains prosocial behaviour, or social distance (a potentially confounding variable)? We are more likely to form social bonds with our relatives than strangers, hence why we are more likely to help them (not because of genes).

Evaluation of the Kin Selection Theory: Strengths

-> Empirical evidence from studies on human beings in an experiment, which found a cause-effect relationship between degree of relatedness and cost imposed by the participant for a recipient (Madsen et al 2007), as well as animal studies on the same topic. -> Has a lot of practical applications, and the theory can for example explain why we are more likely to donate for example our kidneys to a relative. -> The theory has cross-cultural support, as studies conducted both in a western culture (London) and a non-western culture (South Africa) came to the same conclusion.

Empathy-altruism theory

A theory suggesting that empathetic concern for a person in need is what produces an altruistic motive for helping them. When you take someone else's perpective (cognitive component) and feel empathetic concern towards them (emotional component), you will be motivated to act in an altruistic way. Your satisfaction will be derived from reducing another person's distress. When you do not adopt someone else's perspective, according to the empathy-altruism theory, it will result in personal distress, which will motivate egoism.Thus, you will engage in prosocial behaviour to reduce your own distress, as opposed to that of others. Empathy altruism theory demonstrates that humans are thus capable of truly altruistic behaviour.

Farrelly and Bennett (2017) - research promoting prosocial behaviour, stragedy for the promotion of prosocial behaviour

Aim: To examine whether inducing empathetic emotion in participants leads them to behaving more altruistically, measured in terms of time spent on a real world online charity website. Participants: 99 undergraduate students Procedure: -Participants informed efforts will benefit charity -Random assignment to three emotion content videos about dogs; 1 -> Empathy condition (sad video about dog) 2 -> Angry condition (angry video about dog) 3 -> neutral condition (a video that did not have to do with a dog) -After video, participants were told to play an online charity task, on free rice.com, with unlimited multiple choice questions -> which each number of question answered right, UN donates rice. Result: Participants in the empathy video condition donated more rice than those in the neutral condition (Supporting Batson's Empathy altruism model). However, participants in anger condition also donated more than those in the neutral video condition. No gender difference was found. Conclusion (+linking back): One way in which we can promote prosocial behaviour is to induce empathy. This was investigated in the study by Farrelly and Bennett (2017), that examined whether watching an empathetic emotion content video would result in more altruistic behaviour than watching an angry emotion content video, or a neutral one. It was found that participants who watched an empathetic video about a dog donated more grains of rice on an online charity website, free rice.com, that participants who watched a neutral video - This result is thus consistent with the altruistic behaviour suggested by the empathy-altruism model. However, it was also shown in the study that those who watched the angry video also donated more rice than the neutral condition; this can be explained instead by the cost-reward model; Participants felt emotionally and physiologically distressed - and thus were aroused - by the content shown in both empathetic and angry video, and were motivated to donate rice in order to return to a normal state.

Rusthon (1975) - research promoting prosocial behaviour, stragedy for the promotion of prosocial behaviour, sociocultural approach to understanding social responsibility

Aim: To investigate the effect of modelling and preaching of generosity in children in the short run (immediately) and in the long run (8 weeks later). Participants: 140 children, aged 7 to 11 years from working class area in London Procedure: - Each child was tested individually - Experimenter showed the participant several prizes that could be won, and introduced the child to an electronic bowling game - Tokens could be won during the game --> Depending on the number of tokens, a prize should be won. ->On the table there was also a bowl with a poster that said "Save the Children fund"; The experimenter said they could donate to "Bobby", a child on the poster. - The experimenter introduced the child to the same-sex model, who started first to play the game 2 IVs, each with three conditions: 1) Generous model condition (donated one of 2 tokens won to Bobby) / Selfish model condition (donated none of the tokens won to Bobby) / Control condition (with no model) 2) Generous preaching / Neutral preaching / Selfishness preaching (model could be generous in act but preach selfishness). Results: Immediately after the game, modelling was found to be a significant determiner of a child's decisions to donate or not. What was preached seemed to have no effect on the generosity of the children. After 2 months when the children repeated the game, with two more conditions - donating to Bobby or to three asian children - preaching seemed to have an effect; Preaching selfishness produced less giving than those who peached generosity, or neutral messages. Those that perched selfishness but behaved generously resulted in the least giving in the generous model condition etc.. There was no difference in the number of donations made between the two different recipients, Bobby and the Asian children. Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Rushton (1975) demonstrates Social Cognitive Theory as a strategy for the promotion of prosocial behaviour, as the children paying attention and remembering the generous or selfish behaviour of an older adult model resulted in them reproducing a similar behaviour when given the option to engage in prosocial behaviour by donating money to charity. In the short run, the number of tokens donated by the children was thus affected by the behaviour of the model - observing a generous model resulted in the greatest number of donations. While a model's preaching of generous, selfish or neutral behaviour did not have an effect on the children's own donations in the first experiment (immediately), in the second experiment both modelling and preaching seemed to influence the children's decision to donate - preaching selfishness produces less giving in children. This study thus demonstrates the powerful effect of observational learning on prosocial behaviour, particularly in children who observe adult models.

Pillavin et al (1969) - cognitive approach to understanding social responsibility, ethical considerations

Aim: To investigate the helping behaviour of people under real-life conditions - how people would really help when they would be face-to-face with an emergency. To investigate the effect on speed and frequency of helping of the type of victim, race of the victim, presence of helping models, size of witnessing group. Hypotheses: 1. People would be more inclined to help someone of their own race (IV) 2. Help would be more frequent and rapid for an ill compared to a drunk victim - type of victim (IV) 3. The model would lead others to engage in similar helping behaviour (IV) Participants: about 4,450 passengers (opportunity sampling) on the New York subway line - approximately 45% black and 55% white sample. Mean number of bystanders in critical area = 8.5 Method: - In a non-stop 7.5 minute journey in subway carriage in New York - 4 teams of 4 researchers; 2 females that recorded reactions, 2 male - one acting victim and one model - The acting victim were 3 white and 1 black man, all aged between 26-31, dressed and acting identically. - Model instructed to help 70 seconds after collapse until end, if no other help was provided. - 103 trials were conducted in total (38 involved drunk victim, smelt and carried a bottle in paper bag, 65 involved sober victim, carrying a cane). - Dependent variables - frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, movement out of area, verbal comments. Result: Frequencies of help for all of the victims were very high with often more than one helper (over 93% helped spontaneously, before any model) but the cane victim received more help (100%) than the drunk victim (81%), and were offered help significantly more quickly. It was difficult to assess the effect of the model, as spontaneous help was high. Men were more likely to help than women, and there was a tendency for same-race helping. The longer the emergency continued without help, bystanderism was more likely. No diffusion of responsibility was found with variation in group size. Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Pillavin demonstrates bystanderism occurring by the cost-reward model, as the participants in the New York subway carriage were emotionally aroused (emotionally/physiologically distressed) by observing a person in need of help. This motivated people to help, since they wanted to reduce the level of emotional arousal and return to a normal state. Hence, individuals carried out a cost and benefit appraisal and when they judged that the benefits to themselves and the victim were going to be greater than the costs to themselves and the victim, then they helped the victim. Although the number of people who helped was large irrespective of group size and presence of model, the ill victim was overall more likely to receive help, as the costs of helping a ill person would be less than the cost of helping a drunk person (getting angry, or no gratitude for helping), while the benefits of helping a ill person would also be greater (gratitude for helping). In line with this theory, more men helped in the carraige as opposed to women; This is a likely result as the costs of helping someone physically are greater for women than for men. Participants were more likely to help someone of their own race - this yields a greater benefit for the participants' own sense of pride and self-esteem and reduces costs of helping. Finally, the longer the emergency continued without help, participants were less likely to intervene, not affected by a model and more likely to discuss their behaviour; This can be explained by the cost-reward model too, as participants' had likely found a means by which to reduce their emotional arousal level (such as by escaping from the situation, or rationalising their own decision not to help).

Madsen et al - biological approach to understanding prosocial behaviour, prosocial behaviour

Aim: To investigate the hypothesis that an individual's willingness to bear a cost of physical pain to the benefit of another is correlated with the recipient's biological relatedness. Also, to test whether kin-based altruism is specific to certain cultures. Participants: 11 male and 13 female students at University of Oxford. Procedure: - Participants were asked to provide a list of individuals of varied genetic relatedness (parents, grandparents, siblings). - Participants were asked to carry out a ski-training exercise (sitting in a "chair-like stance") in exchange for a proportionate money reward given to an individual, those name was revealed to the participant before the exercise. this could either be the participant themselves (r= coefficient of relatedness; 1), a sibling (r=0.5), a grandparent (0.25) or a cousin (0.125). The length of the time that participants maintained the position was calculated. - At the end of the trial, the duration for which the positions as held was determined and fees were calculated. Participants received 0.40 per 20 seconds, in addition to a flat rate fee of 1 pound. Result: The cost that the participants imposed on themselves, in the form of pain endured during a painful exercise position, was proportional to the degree of relatedness of the recipient of the material reward. Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Madsen et al demonstrates the Kin Selection Theory by Hamilton, as the participants were more likely to engage in prosocial behaviour towards people of closer genetic relatedness to them; In fact, the higher the coefficient of relatedness of the recipient (defined as r, from 0-1), the more participants were likely to impose a personal cost on themselves (in the form of pain) during the experiment trials. This thus demonstrates that selection works on the level of the gene as opposed to the individual, and that when the values of genetic relatedness (r) and reproductive benefit are larger than the reproductive cost, then prosocial behaviour will take place. Experiment 2 investigated the same aim as experiement 1, but conducted the experiment using students in London as well as two populations from South Africa. Results found were the same, and thus confirmed that kin-based selection is trans-cultural.

Levine et al (2005) - theories of bystanderism, sociocultural approach to understanding social responsibility

Aim: To investigate the importance of social group membership (according to Social Identity Theory) for helping behaviour. Participants: 45 male students from Lancaster University; Self-identified Manchester United Football Club supporters. Procedure: Participants were invited to the Psychology department, where they were informed that the study was about research on football fans; they were then asked to fill out two questionnaires. First questionnaire asked them to identify the team they supported, and answer why. The second questionnaire was about identifying with other supporters of the team (in order to increase prominence of their identity as Manchester United fans). After the two questionnaire, the participants would watch a short video about football teams, fans and crowd behaviour. They were told the cubicle was too small, so the video would be shown in another building. Participants walked to the other building, and on their way a confederate jogged and pretended to slip and fall in the grass, holding his ankle and shouting out in pain. IV: The confederate was either wearing a Manchester United team shirt (in-group), a Liverpool FC team shirt (a rival to Manchester; hence, out-group) or an ordinary sport shirt with no brand on it. DV: Whether the participant offered help (having noticed the accident). This was rated and observed by three independent observers hidden at different vantage points. Results: Participants were significantly more likely (92%) to help the stranger when he was wearing the Manchester United shirt than when he was wearing a Liverpool shirt, or the ordinary sports shirt. However, there was no evidence that out-group members were less likely tp receive help than those with no social category (this was further investigated in experiment 2). Experiment 2 Participants: 32 male students from Lancaster University, all self-identified Manchester United Club fans Method: The same as in previous experiment, except the participants were told the study was about football in general (the aim being to explore the positive aspects of being a football fan; a more inclusive football identity was made prominent). Result: Participants were helpful when the person in need was a Manchester United fan (80% helped), but also helpful when the person in need was a Liverpool fan (70% helped). Only 22% helped when the person in need was not a football fan. Conclusion + (linking back): The two studies by Levine et al (2005) demonstrates bystanderism occurring through social identity theory (proposed by Tajfel and Turner), as participants' social categorisation and identification as Manchester United Club fans led them to categorise fans of their own football club as part of an in-group, and fans of other football clubs as an out-group (in the first experiment). Thus, the number of participants who demonstrated bystanderism was less when the confederate in the field experiment was identified as member of an in-group (through wearing a Manchester United shirt), whereas more participants were likely to be bystanders when the confederate was identified as being a member of an out-group (through wearing a Liverpool FC shirt), or being member of no social group (wearing an unbranded sports t-shirt). The second experiment demonstrated bystanderism occurring by the same principle, but in this case the in-group was larger and identified as being a football fan, and the out-group as non-football fans, as the experimenters tried to emphasise the positive aspects of being a football fan (making a more inclusive fan identity). Thus, participants were more likely to help the confederate both when he was wearing a Manchester United Club t-shirt, or a Liverpool FC shirt (80% and 70%), as fans of both football clubs were identified as members of the in-group. In contrast, not many helped the confederate when he was wearing a unbranded t-shirt, because he was socially identified and categorised as an out-group member. The two studies by Levine thus demonstrates the theory of bystanderism as occurring through in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination; we are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviour towards members of our own in-group.

Batson et al (1981) - prosocial behaviour, cognitive approach to understanding social responsibility

Aim: To investigate whether behaviour that benefits others are motivated by true altruism or by a wish to avoid own negative feelings / personal feelings of distress. Participants: 44 female introductory psychology students Method: - Administered a questionnaire to measure personal values and interests - Participants informed about a experiment that tested "task performance under stressful condition and impression formation"; They were informed that two participants were to take on two roles in the experiment- one was to be administered electrical shocks and the other one was to assess the impressions of the victim. The participant was always the one assessing, and a confederate was always the victim. - The first IV was the perceived similarity to the confederate, Elaine. The participant was shown her responses to the questionnaire answered first in the experiment, which could be either very similar to very dissimilar. This was manipulated in order to investigate whether adopting someone's perspective (by perceived similarity) would increase empathetic concern, and thus altruism. - Then, the other variable manipulated was the difficulty of escaping the experiment; in one condition, participant was told that she could only observe two of the shocks, while in the other condition they were told to observe all. This variable was controlled in order to separate what was "altruistic behaviour" and what was purely egoism by measuring how costly it was not to help. - The participant was placed in a room and asked to observe the victim on a TV (and watched a pre-recorded video). By midway of the second trial, Elaine was shown as having bad reactions to the electric shocks; She was asked by the assistant whether she would agree to changing roles with the true participant of the study. The experimenter then came into the participant's room and asked whether she would be willing to replace Elaine. Results: It was found that perceived similarity between the participant and Elaine affected overall willingness to replace Elaine. For a dissimilar victim, the probability of taking Elaine's place was low (18% for easy escape and 64% for difficult escape) and furthermore, the decision of whether to help or not was determined by how difficult it was to escape. if it was easy to escape, less were likely to help. However, they also found that when participants perceived themselves to be similar to Elaine then the willingness of taking her positions was not affected by the difficulty in escaping from the situation (and thus the cost of not helping) (91% for the easy escape condition and 82% for the difficult escape condition) - demonstrating that when participants felt empathetic concern, they were more likely to engage in truly altruistic behaviour. Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Batson et al (1981) demonstrates the Empathy-altruism model because when the participants adopted Elaine( the confederate's) perspective (the cognitive component of the theory), by perceiving a similarity between her and themselves, they felt higher level of empathetic concern towards her. This empathetic concern (the emotional component of the theory) then lead a high number of participants to help Elaine, even when the decision to help was very costly towards them (even in situations where it was easy to escape). This behaviour then, can in turn be defined as examples of "true altruism", where the ultimate goal was to increase others welfare regardless of personal costs. On the other hand, when participants deemed themselves as dissimilar to Elaine, they were less likely to adopt her perspective and thus feel personal distress rather than empathetic concern; This explains why, in the low empathy condition, less participants were willing to help Elaine than in the high empathy condition. Those that did help, often did so in the difficult escape condition, in as in this case the personal distress felt was higher. Thus, Batson was able to demonstrate that they are two kinds of prosocial behaviour - egoism and altruism - and that this behaviour is dependent on adopting someone else's perspective and feeling empathy for that person.

Marsh et al (2014) - biological approach to understanding social responsibility --> Brain structures / dispositional factors affect prosocial behaviour.

Aim: To investigate whether the amygdalas of extreme altruists (e.g. people who have donated a kidney to a stranger) may have observable differences from the amygdalas of other people - and whether this difference would be the opposite of those seen in the brains of psychopaths. Participants: 19 altruistic kidney donors (to stranger) recruited nationally, as well as 20 controls matched for IQ, income, education, psychological history and medication use. Procedure: Three stages - Emotion recognition task in an fMRI; participants were shown images of faces displaying one out of 6 basic emotions, shown at either high or moderate intensity. The time taken to press a button to decide was measured. - MRI scan to determine brain structure - Tests taken by participant to measure level of psychopathy and empathy Result: It was found that extraordinary altruists had a greater average volume (8.1% increase) in the right amygdala than in the controls - the right hemisphere is associated with negative emotions and in recognising emotions such as fear. There was also a faster response time in the right amygdala to fearful facial expression for the altruists than for the control group. In concordance with the hypothesis, the findings are opposite of what has been shown in research of psychopaths. Conclusion (+linking back): This study demonstrates a biological approach to understanding social responsibility, as it was shown that the people who were "true altruists" whose compassion extends beyond their social circle, had a greater average volume in the right amygdala compared to a control group. They also had an average faster response time to fearful facial expressions in the right amygdala, which is the opposite to what had been found in the brain of psychopaths. Thus, the study demonstrated how the brains of altruists may thus be different to people who are not, and thus how there may be a biological basis for our prosocial behaviour.

Darley and Latane (1968) - theories of Bystanderism

Aim: To investigate whether the number of people present at a scene of emergency will affect the likelihood of intervening in it. Participants: 59 female and 13 male students in introductory Psychology course Method: - Each participant was tested individually - they were seated in a room and over an intercom falsely informed about the experiment - The "purpose" of the experiment was to talk about study difficulties through group discussions --> Embarrassing, so the participants are anonymous to each other, using microphones and earphones. Other participants in the discussion were seated across the same corridor. - Each participant was given 2 minutes to talk about their own problems and afterwards there was a round of comments, and then general discussion. - In first condition, there were 2 people (victim+participant); in second, 3 people and in third, 6 people. - The first 2 minutes was given to the person who acted as a victim who mentioned he was prone to seizures. During the second round, he made some comments and then started to talk louder and incoherently - he asked for help and mentioned a seizure. After 2 minutes speech was cut off (to indicate that he had a seizure). - The only way to intervene would be participants' leaving the room and seeking assistance - As the participant left the room, they were approached by an assistant who debriefed them. DV: * The number of people that intervened * The time taken for people to intervene (time from the start of the victim's second speech until leaving the room) Result: Researchers found that the number of people the participants perceived as having overheard the seizure affected whether they chose to intervene, and how fast. When the participant believed they were the only ones who knew, the likelihood of intervention was higher (84%) than when participants thought they were in a group ( 3 people group - 60%, 6 people group - 30%). Response time was also significantly shorter (50 sec for two people group compared to 165 sec for six people group). Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Darley and Latane demonstrates bystanderism as occurring through diffusion of responsibility, as the participants' perception of how many other people overheard the seizure influenced the amount of responsibility they felt to help the victim. This is demonstrated by the difference in the percentage of participants intervening and the time taken for intervening among the different sizes of groups (IV). If the participant was alone with the victim, the responsibility of helping was fully on that participant; Hence, 84% of participants helped, at a short intervention time of around 50 seconds. On the other hand, when the participant was with 4 other participants (6 in total), the responsibility of seeking assistance was diffused among them all, meaning that the responsibility that an individual felt to help was much lower. Thus, only 30% of participants in a group of 6 intervened, after a much longer time of 165 seconds. This study thus demonstrates our perception of how many people witnessing an event will affect the way in which we respond to it ourselves - with a larger number of witnesses, not helping becomes easier as blame can be shared.

Toi and Batson (1982) - prosocial behaviour

Aim: To test whether manipulating a participant's level of empathy would increase the chances of them helping. Participants: 84 female undergraduate students, volunteers from a course in Psychology Method: - Participants listened to a fictional interview with Carol Marcy, a freshman in the class who had her legs broken in an auto accident, who worried about being able to pass the course (example of deception). IV 1: Level of empathy. half of the participants were asked to listen to the interview as objectively as possible (low empathy) / half the participants were asked to imagine being her / putting themselves in that perspective (high empathy). IV2: The cost of not helping half of the participants were told that Carol would come back to class next week (high cost condition) / half the participants were told that Carol would not come back to class, and that she would be studying at home (low cost condition). - After interview, subjects were asked to help Carol in going over missed lecture notes. DV was whether subjects filled out a slip agreeing to help Carol. Result: - Those that imagined themselves in Carol's perspective (high empathy group) were almost equally likely to help Carol, even when the cost of helping was high or low. Meanwhile, the low empathy group helped less when it was easy to escape (low cost condition), demonstrating egoism. Conclusion (+linking back): The study by Toi and Batson demonstrates the empathy-altruism theory, as the participants who put themselves in Carol's perspective were more likely to feel empathetic concern for her, which led them to engage in altruistic behaviour. This was demonstrated by them helping her even when the cost of not helping was very low, as she would not return to the class again. However, when participants did not put themselves in her perspective, this led to low empathetic concern, which meant that participants often did not help when the cost of not doing so was lower.

Kin Selection Theory

An evolutionary theory of prosocial behaviour that sees helping behaviour as directed at increasing the reproductive chances of genetically related individuals, as a result of natural selection. This hypothesis, proposed in 1969 by Hamilton, suggests that individuals are driven to help by the desire to pass on our genes, even when there is a personal cost to helping someone. The selection thus works on the level of the gene and not on the individual. Hamilton also included the term "Inclusive fitness", which defines the ability of an individual to pass on his or her genes to the next generation. This can occur through "direct fitness"; where your help your own survival directly through offspring, and "indirect fitness", where you help your survival through other relatives. Hamilton incorporated the proportion of genes shared between two family members = r (0-1), in order to come up with an overall value known as inclusive fitness. Hamilton's rule: r (co-efficient of relatedness) x B (reproductive benefit) > C (reproductive cost).

Evaluation of the empathy-altruism theory

Strengths: - Can provide an explanation for true altruism - Has wide-ranging applications; Can for example be used to explain why not many tried to intervene during the Holocaust; the German people did not adopt the perspective of those persecuted (they were discouraged through propaganda), and thus they did not feel empathetic concern and were less willing to help when the cost was high. The people that did help however, helped even when the cost of helping was very high. - Applications in advertising, for example for donations to charity - Can be used to explain prosocial behaviour for any one, regardless of emotion or social relationships or genetic relatedness. Limitations: - Kin Selection Theory does not support the empathy-altruism theory, and suggests a biological drive for prosocial behaviour as opposed to a cognitive and emotional one - Ethical concerns; Very difficult to test prosocial behaviour and thus true altruism ethically - The oneness hypothesis suggests that empathy collides with this idea of "oneness"; our concern for other people are, at the end of the day, our own personal concerns. Hence, we help others in order to relieve our own personal concern - what appears to be altruistic behaviour is in fact egoistical. This suggests that there is no true altruism, as is suggested by Batson. - Still too simplistic; Does not take into account social and cultural factors behind helping

Evaluation of Batson et al (1981)

Strengths: - Cause and effect relationship found between probability of taking Elaine's place and empathy level; With higher empathy level, the probability of helping Elaine increases. - Two IV variables were investigated; "cognitive component" to investigate whether adopting someone else's perspective increases empathy, as well as the "cost of not helping" to investigate whether behaviour was truly altruistic - The cost imposed on the participants (a large amount of pain) is more "representative" of a personal cost involved in truly altruistic behaviour Limitations: - This study has many ethical violations (-Protection from mental harm / Withdrawal from study / Informed consent / Deception) - Gender biased, and limited external validity; Again only women of ages 19-22 (university age) were used. Psychology students again - Psych students are maybe more likely to be more prosocial than other types of students?

Evaluation of Darley and Latane (1968)

Strengths: - Many applications to the real world; explains why bystanders may not intervene in cases of crime and genocide (Genovese effect, murder of James Burgler) -Although many ethical concerns, cost-benefit analysis would show that this experiment is very valuable because of its application validity. - Example of a laboratory experiment, with high internal validity - cause and effect relationship between the number of bystanders and the percentage of participants who intervened / time taken to intervene. Limitations: - Many ethical violations in this study, particularly of protection from harm and deception - Study needs to be replicated in another culture; Perhaps the chances of helping would be reduced in a collectivistic culture??? - Ecological validity is low; Participants are rarely faced with this particular situation where they can choose to intervene/not intervene. In real life, they may act differently. - Demand characteristics --> the act of being part of an experiment would increase the chances of the participants helping

Evaluation of Toi & Batson (1981)

Strengths: - The study tested both the components of empathy-altruism theory; cognitive component (taking Carol's perspective) and how this affected the emotional component (feeling high/low empathy for Carol) and found evidence supporting that higher levels if empathy leads to truly altruistic behaviour which is in accordance with the model. Limitations: - The "cost" of helping her could be said not to be a cost at all, as some individuals may have simply helped to become friends with Carol / because they like teaching others. - Only female participants were used, gender biased - female participants are in general more likely to demonstrate prosocial behaviour in comparison to men - Psychology students were participants, so possibility for increased demand characteristics? - Social desirability bias; the act of being watched may have increased the number of people who signed out a slip

Evaluation of Levine et al (2005)

Strengths: - Two studies those result can be explained by SIT increases the reliability of the findings; Furthermore, it provides further insight which allows us to make applications of the research to real life --> Suggests a way to promote prosocial behaviour. - High ecological validity, as it was a field study conducted in the participant's natural environment (university campus). Limitations: - Self-reports may not be very reliable, especially on a questionnaire where participants may demonstrate social desirability bias (maybe they did not want to admit which football club they were actually fans of). - Demand characteristics were possible, as the experiment took place a very short time after the questionnaire - Confounding variables; Perhaps it was something else about the confederate (age, gender, race, appearance) which made the participants' want to help -Limited generalisability of data, as participants were all male and of university age; Maybe this group of participants are more invested in their group identity than other target populations, less/more likely to help even in ordinary situations

Evaluation for Marsh et al (2014)

Strengths: --> Provides biological support for prosocial behaviour through measuring both fMRI (activity -reaction to negative emotion of fear) and MRI (structure of the right amygdala) scan - results are more likely to be reliable through the use of two scans and one additional test --> Results appear to support what had been found previously (with psychopaths) Limitations: --> This is a very reductionist argument for altruistic behaviour; Kidney donors make a well-reasoned and conscious decision, which does not represent all altruistic behaviour --> Quasi experiment, with no cause and effect relationship between the degree of altruism and the average volume of the right amygdala --> Small sample size of MRI scans --> Low ecological validity in fMRI and MRI; anxiety from being in the tunnel could "trigger" false activities in the fMRI.

Factors influencing bystanderism -> Social Identity Theory

The Social Identity theory, proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1971, is an explanation for bystanderism. Human beings have a tendency of categorising themselves according to the social groups they belong to, as part of an in-group (us) and out-group (them) This results in a tendency to discriminate in favour for in-groups over out-groups, as we want our own group to be better, and this is known as positive distinctiveness. We are more likely to become bystanders when the member in need of help is part of an out-group - this was demonstrated by Levine et al (2005) - in the first experiment, the in-group was the Manchester United football fans and out-group Liverpool FC fans. In the second experiment, the in-group was football fans and out-group non-football fans.

Factors affecting bystanderism -> **Arousal: Cost-reward model

The arousal cost-reward model begins with arousal (an unpleasant emotional/physiological response when witnessing others in distress). Individuals feel motivated to act in order to return to a normal state, and the greater the arousal, the likelihood of help is greater. Witnesses perform a cost-reward appraisal ("bystander calculus") in order to determine whether to help or remain a bystander, depending on whether the potential rewards (to self and victim) outweigh potential cost (for self and victim). In any situation, consider: What are the possible costs and rewards?

Factor influencing bystanderism -> Number of people: *** Diffusion of responsibility

The perception that others are witnessing the same event will significantly decrease the likelihood of an individual to actually intervene in it. This is partly because they believe someone else will act, but also because blame of not helping can be shared. When you are the only person at the scene, you carry 100% responsibility; When there are other people watching, your own responsibility will be a lot less ("diffused") among the other witnesses. The theory of diffusion of responsibility thus suggests that the higher the number of bystanders, the less they are likely to take actions. (--> Explains the Genovese effect: Why no one out of the 38 witnesses did anything; They diffused the responsibility of helping amongst themselves, all thinking that someone else would help).

Bystanderism

The phenomenon of a person or people not intervening despite the awareness of another person's need; The phenomenon of remaining a bystander.

Factors influencing bystanderism -> Number of people: ***Pluralistic Ignorance

The tendency for a group of people to mislead each other about a situation - the state in which people in a group mistakenly think that their own individual thoughts, feelings or behaviour are different from those of the others in the group. A temporary in-group is created, where the only rule is not to intervene (witnesses influence each other to believe that the passivity in the situation is appropriate).